PDA

View Full Version : Moon hoax=fun.



Staffan Norling
2002-Mar-27, 08:21 PM
I just had my first browse through this (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html) website. Amusing entertainment! Most of the "proofs" are written by uneducated ppl for uneducated ppl. Check theese out:

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/goodphoto.gif
This is a "proof" for fake lighting on the "moon" The shadows are cast in different directions and there is a "spotlight" to the far right.

Somebody slept in school or what? The shadows follow basic perspective laws. We can clearly see that the picture are sticked together by three smaller pictures, one to the right, on in the centre and one to the left. The pictures where taken with a camera on a tripod, then sticked together. anybody can see the two "seams". The "spotlight" is in the centre on the right hand picture. Note that it is in the exact centre. Over exposure in the centre of an image is not unusual.

Look at the shadow of the photographer. It is vertical. This prooves that the photographer had the sun in the back when he took the picture. The shadow of the flag leans to the left and the flag of the LEM leans to the right. The crater on the far left is hit by light form the left.
As you understand, the sun is distant and the shadows are parallel. What happens with parallel lines in a perspective? They leans towards each others and joins in on point! If you draw lines from the shadows, you will see that all shadow directions are correct and that there is only one lightsource.

This (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/Wind.gif) Is a really funny video too. The flag "blows" in the wind. What happens with a flag equipped with a wire along the top edge when it blows in the wind? First, the wind fills the lower parts of the flag, then the upper part with the wire follows. In the clip it can clearly be seen that the top of the flag comes first, then comes the bottom. The movement of the flag must originate from a rotation of the pole. And otherwise...there's absolutely no sign of air resistance. The flag would bulge and ripple if it was affecte by wind. I have studied cloth for 3d-animation purposes, and there is no cloth that behaves like that when affected by air resistance.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/Ap14shd.gif
This image can be explained simply. There's probably a slope that makes the shadows of the rocks in the front appear strange. Claiming that the shadows is a proof of two lightsources is plain supid.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/Shadows.gif
Another slope problem. How could the shadow of the dude to the right be taller than the shadow of the dude to the left?
The guy who wrote the page claims that the lightsource is close to the two astronauts. One astronaut is standing near the lighsource, then angle to it is different and the shadow should therefor be shorter. But the worng shadow is too short damnit! If there was a lightsource close to the astronauts, then the shadow of the dude to the left would be shorter than the shadow of the dude to the right, not the other way around.
This is all about a slope. The author of the page claims that the shadow should bend at the beginning of the slope. As you may see, the shadow is straight and nice...But take a look at the austronaut. His legs are slightly bent, but the shadow is straight. Howcome? The Shadow is bent. The angle of the knee joints nullifies the bend effect of the shadow. Also, look at the length of the shadow's legs. The legs seams way too tall compared to the shadow of the torso. The only explanation is that there is a slope. No close lightsource can distort a shadow that way.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/Moonshad1.gif

Well...the front of the astronaut looks a little bit too bright, does'nt it? Yeah, i must admit that it looks strange..but don't forget that the suits of the astronauts are white. The article claims that the surface of the moon only reflects 7% of the sunlight. It also says that the astronaut should be as dark as the front on the little rick to the left.
Let us assume that the reflectivity of the rock is 7% aswell. But can we assume that the reflectivity of the astronaut is that small? O don't think so. The white siut should have a pretty high refelctivity. A reflectivity of 100% would make the astronaut the same color as the dust. As you may see, the lower part of the dude is darker than the enviroment. It is posible that the light on the front of the astronaut is reflected from the ground. The statement that the astronaut should be as dark as rock in the shadow is plain stupid becouse the suits reflects a lot more light than the enviroment. It is also believable that the earth adds to the light. Why no shadow from the earth? the earth is big. Big lightsource means smoother shadows. The shadow cast by the earth is simply too subtle and too smooth to be visible.


And, i saved the best for the last...this actually made me laugh out loud...

The article says "In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would
rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up."

What the hell does a science fiction movie have to do with a real world event?? They could as well tell that the moon landing is fake becouse the transporters in StarTrek wouldn't work in reality. lol!

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-27, 09:00 PM
Hi, Staffan,

Welcome to the BABB!

You have most of your facts right, but I want to point out a couple of things...



On 2002-03-27 15:21, Staffan Norling wrote:
Look at the shadow of the photographer. It is vertical. This prooves that the photographer had the sun in the back when he took the picture.

It's also the reason for the higher brightness in that part of the picture. The Moon's surface reflects light strongly back toward its source. This is known as specular reflection. It's why the full moon is much brighter than other phases (it's much more than twice as bright as the quarter-moon phase).



And, i saved the best for the last...this actually made me laugh out loud...

The article says "In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would
rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up."

What the hell does a science fiction movie have to do with a real world event?? They could as well tell that the moon landing is fake becouse the transporters in StarTrek wouldn't work in reality. lol!

Actually, "Apollo 13" is not a science fiction movie. It is a historical drama; the events it portrays really happened on a real lunar mission. The capsule really did get cold after the explosion and resulting loss of power. This issue has been much discussed on this board. Almost no one who has investigated the issue thoroughly has any doubt that this is exactly what should and would happen in such a case -- and, in fact, it did.

AstroMike
2002-Mar-27, 09:16 PM
On 2002-03-27 15:21, Staffan Norling wrote:
Over exposure in the centre of an image is not unusual.


Well, overexposure has nothing to do with this. The bright "spotlighted" area in question is caused by a peculiar effect called Heiligenschein. See here (http://www.weather-photography.com/Atmospheric_Optics/heiligenschein.html) for a brief definition of it.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-27, 11:12 PM
The Moon's surface reflects light strongly back toward its source. This is known as specular reflection.

Right phenomenon, wrong name. Specular reflection is light that bounces off a surface so that the angle of departure is the angle of incidence, but reflected through the surface normal -- like a billiard ball bouncing off the rail in a predictable direction.

As already noted, you're thinking of heiligenschein, a combination of occluded shadows and the local interaction of light with the spherical translucent grains the comprise a percentage of the lunar regolith.

The capsule really did get cold after the explosion and resulting loss of power.

The sharpest temperature drop occurred when the cabin sun shades were drawn. The heat level might have been maintained longer if the sunlight had been allowed to enter the cabin through the windows and been converted to a more infrareddish wavelength.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-28, 02:40 AM
Looks like this guy just cribs liberally from David Percy. I wonder if Aulis knows just how much of their proprietary material he's reproducing?

I won't do the detailed thing; I'll just cover the stuff that hasn't been covered yet.

Bill Kaysing was head of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963.

No. Kaysing was head of technical publications. He was not head of advanced research.

Kaysing's academic qualifications are well known and not in dispute. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in English. While that qualifies him to head a tech pubs division, it does not qualify him to head up advanced research at a hard-core engineering company. That job requires at least a Master's degree in a "hard" engineering field such as mechanical engineering as well as significant industry experience. Further, those two positions would never be held by the same person in a company as large as Rocketdyne. Finally, Kaysing's demonstrated inexpertise in technical matters (as attested to by other hoax authors) singularly disqualifies him from such a prestigious post as director of advanced research.

Kaysing exaggerates his credentials because most of his argument boils down to his supposed expertise and personal experience. His arguments fall flat unless the reader is made to believe he was an engineer of some sort.

However the TV film which is taken from behind the astronaut doesn't show the flap?

Yes it does. Clearly.

We see what appears to be another Earth...

No, you see the reflection of the astronaut's flight suit in the window. The "clouds" move when the astronaut moves.

Incidentally, Jan Lundberg has stated that the only way that you could calculate the distance in the shot using the crosshairs would be if you had two cameras set up to take a stereo picture!

And this is exactly why the astronauts took hundreds of stereo pairs by taking one photo and then stepping to one side to take the corresponding pair.

David Percy claims to have made a thorough survey of the Apollo photographs. These stereo pairs exist therein in the hundreds. Either Percy is lying about having exhaustively examined the photos, or he is deliberately withholding vital information from the reader.

The use of the letter C on film props is well known by the people in Hollywood and is used to show where the centre of the scene should be.

Hm. Unlike this site's author and unlike Percy, I've actually been to and worked in Hollywood. And one of my hobbies is theater. I'll trust my own experience on how props are handled, not the word of people who've never been there.

First, props in Hollywood are not generally labelled. And in the rare cases where they are, they are not labelled on the visible side.

Second, the center of a scene is not annotated with a "C". Nobody in the entertainment industry I've talked to has heard of this practice. On the paper drawings of scenery and stage designs, the centerline of the stage or scene is often indicated with a dotted line and a stylized "CL", but annotations on the stage itself are simply tape marks or wax pencil lines, not visible from audience or camera.

This whole argument seems to be an elaborate fantasy for which no evidence is provided to substantiate the claim.

One sceptic on the Bad astronomy sceptics web group has even said it is a hair??? on both the rock and ground... Now who's trying to cover things up?

There's nothing to cover up. The "C" doesn't appear on the JSC scans of the master transparency scanned in the mid 1980s. It doesn't appear on the scans taken of the new transparencies from 1996. It doesn't appear in any version of frame 17445, the preceding photo on the roll taken of the same location and showing the same rock.

In fact, the little mark appears on exactly one print of this photo, residing at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston. This single print has the poor fortune of having been scanned at high resolution and widely disseminated in digital form on the Internet.

That print was located and examined under a microscope. The "C" is not part of the rock. In fact, it casts a shadow, indicating it was a contamination on the transparency at the time the print was made. You don't have to look at too many other hi-res scans from prints in order to see identical fibrous contamination.

What's even sillier is that working photographers are not at all surprised at such fibers. That kind of contamination happens all the time.

I don't know if anyone here claimed that the "C" on the ground was also contamination, but I don't believe it. I believe the "C" on the ground is real. Which is to say, I believe it's a feature of the terrain. But I certainly don't believe it was intended as the letter "C". I can also find several other "letters" and "numbers" in this photo -- the numeral "14", a backwards "R". Are these all intentional too? Or are they simply features of the terrain that the human visual cortex tries to form into letters?

The point remains: the "C" has only ever existed one one print, and never on the negatives. And Percy should have known that. Now who's trying to cover things up?

He is standing farther away from the arc light that is illuminating them both. I truly believe that this footage is taken on a film set, you cannot reproduce this strange shadow phenomenon with natural light...

No, as a matter of fact you cannot produce this phenomenon with studio light. I have a standing challenge to David Percy to reproduce these photos in a studio and show us how it could have been done. So far he has not accepted the challenge, perhaps because he's tried it and already realized the error of his hypothesis.

According to Percy, the shadows are being created by a bright studio light nearby, perhaps just out of frame to the right. If this were true, the astronaut closest to the light would cast the shortest shadow, not vice versa as we see.

his shadow would show a definite 'crease' where the land begins to rise...it doesn't!

It wouldn't when viewed from a high angle, such as is the case here where the camera is mounted twenty feet off the ground in the LM window.

But there is plenty of evidence that the slope in terrain exists.

1. In other excerpts from the 16mm DAC footage, the astronatu shadows do indeed bend. This is especially evident when Armstrong carries the television camera out to its EVA position.

2. If the astronaut were not blocking the shadow of the flagpole, you would see that it does indeed bend.

3. Hasselblad photography of this same area very distinctly shows the bend in the shadow of the flagpole.

This is absolutely conclusive proof of terrain that changes slope. The shadow effects produced in all the media of this location can only be produced by a variation in the terrain. They cannot be produced by lighting, whether natural or artificial.

Percy claims to have seen all this footage, yet he shows only that footage which supports his contention and none of the footage which refutes it.

As I've stated elsewhere on this page, the reflectivity is only 7% so the theory of the light bouncing from the surface is highly suspect.[/b

The moon's albedo is given as low as 12% and as high as 25%. It depends which method (zero phase geometric or five-degree) is used and whether local albedo variations are considered. 7% is not a correct figure for the lunar albedo. Further, albedo is not a complete measure of a surface's lighting effect. It does not account for specularity, nor does it account for peculiar effects such as heiligenschein.

[b]Due to the atmospheric conditions on the Moon's surface...

Huh?

that's the same reflectivity as asphalt

No. Aged asphalt has an albedo of 17%, roughly equal to the mean geometric albedo of the lunar surface. Aged asphalt is also quite brightly reflective.

During the Apollo missions, the movie cameras were fitted with special night lenses[/b

No. The television camera was so equipped, and the explanation is that vidicon tubes respond differently to low light levels than photographic film.

[b]Dr Groves has also worked out that after analysing the shadows cast by both the astronaut...

Earlier Groves argues that surface terrain wouldn't have a significant affect on shadow direction. That's when he was trying to claim that the shadows were wrong. His claim there was based on the assumption that the ground was perfectly flat, or that if it weren't, it wouldn't affect the shadows enough to worry about.

Now Dr. Groves is using the phenomenon he claims is insignificant in order to compute the relative heights of subject and photographer to a tolerance of mere inches. I smell a rat.

Further, there are photos of the crater Aldrin was standing in, showing Aldrin's footprints in it!

one of the astronauts who was being told by Houston to adjust the camera asked if he should point the camera towards the Sun??

Point it "up sun" is not the same as pointing it "at the sun". The sunshade on the lens prevents the camera from damage if it is pointed at the azimuth of the sun, so long as it is not elevated to render the sunshade ineffectual.

A feat that is quite hard to believe considering the very awkward pressurized gauntlets that they were wearing.

Gauntlets that neither Percy nor the site author have ever worn.

The precaution of changing the film inside the LEM was not adhered to and could have ended in disaster if the film had actually been dropped into the dust on the ground.

There was no such precaution. The astronauts were expected to be able to change film magazines at essentially any point in the mission.

However in certain films, they do seem to be wearing different gloves that do not seem to be pressurized?

The outer glove protectors are not pressurized. They fit over the slim, black gloves with the knobby knuckles (to facilitate bending) that were the actual pressure gloves. Clearly Percy doesn't know what he's talking about.

How do you explain why the 'Sun' having a halo around it if the Moon has no atmosphere?

Lens scatter. Every photographer knows this. Percy either knows it and chooses not to reveail it, or he does not know it and is therefore not to be considered an expert photographer.

One viewer Una Ronald stayed up to see the telecast and was astonished with what she saw. ... This was in the early hours of the morning

Bzzzt! Thank you for playing. The Apollo 11 EVA happened when it was daytime in Australia. Ms. Ronald obviously did not "stay up" in the "early hours of the morning" to watch it. Further, if the mysterious Coke bottle had indeed been covered in the newspapers, why haven't the hoax believers produced those articles?

Finally, Mike Dinn, a well-known Aussie communications expert on Apollo, has said that the Australian stations and decoders were set up to feed the signal only to Mission Control, not to local television markets.

Movie film runs at 30 frames per second, whereas video film runs at 60 frames per second.

Wrong both times. Movie film runs at 24 frames per second, 48 fields per second. Video (in the United States) runs at 29.97 frames per second, 59.94 fields per second.

So in other words the footage that most people saw that they thought was 'live' wasn't, and was actually 50% slower than the original footage!

Nope, wrong, and irrelevant. The signal coming down on the USB (Unified S-Band, not the newfangled serial protocol) was a specially downgraded signal at 10 fps. The entire purpose of the ground stations was to convert it to standard video frame rates for display at Mission Control. Motion picture film has nothing to do with this process.

Did you know that the picture to the right is the only close-up picture taken of Armstrong on the Moon

Armstrong was by far the better photographer.

Why is there a lack of any engine sound on any of the films as the lunar lander is about to land on the Moons surface?

1. The roar of a rocket is the collision of its exhaust with the surrounding atmosphere. Remove the atmosphere and the roar goes away too.

2. The microphones picking up the astronauts' voices were inside their helmets.

After all, the astronauts are sitting on an engine that can produce 10.000 lb. of thrust and burning at 5000 degrees Fahrenheit of heat.

The engine was throttled back to 25%. It burns at about 2,800 F, not 5,000 F.

According to some sources the astronauts could hear the thrusters charging

What sources? What does "thrusters charging" mean? The RCS thrusters are the simplest rockets that can be made -- two solenoid valves, a combustion chamber, and a nozzle.

The exhaust jet coming out of the LEM on descent or ascent should have created an enormous cloud of reddish coloured gas

Yes, if it had been fired in an atmosphere. The red cloud you see on earth is the reaction of the pre-injected nitrogen tetroxide with the oxygen in the atmosphere. No oxygen, no red cloud.

The Delta II second state uses an engine almost identical in construction, and burning exactly the same fueld, as the LM ascent engine. Lots of footage exists of that engine firing in a vacuum, and there is no reddish cloud. Nor should there be.

The fuel used are exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today

False. The space shuttle RCS uses monomethyl hydrazine. The LM ascent motor used Aerozine 50.

Surely there should have been some type of crater under the Apollo landing modules

Why? Engines ten times as powerful don't make craters. Why should this one?

If you compare the molten volcanic rock at Mount Etna, that was boiled at only 1000 Celsius.

Ah, but boiled for days, weeks, months, or years. I used to live in Italy and have hiked all over Mt. Etna. It's up there bubbling all the time.

Take an acetylene torch, the kind used to cut steel, and hold it over a rock for a few minutes. Will the rock melt? No, then why do you expect melted rock when a 2,800 F flame brushes it from 20 or 30 feet up?

I have heard some skeptics state that the engines force would have been dispersed mainly sideways, but if this is so, what actually held up the 2,300lbs of lunar lander when it was on its descent to the Lunar surface?

How about 2,300 lbf of Newtonian conservation of momentum?

Surely the windows should be showing black space

Scattered sunlight from outgassing gaskets.

the one on the right shows a normal shot of a command and service module with its cover removed from the scientific instrument bay.... ..do they look similar to you?

No, because unlike Percy I know what I'm looking at when I see pictures of spacecraft. The bays in question are on opposite sides of the service module.

If the same sceptics cared to double the speed of the film, they would see that the astronauts don't act any differently to how they would on Earth!

The same skeptics have doubled the speed of the film, and they find that the horizontal components of motion are greatly and comically sped up.

My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation.

Because they are subject to the rules of occupational exposure -- laws which govern the use of ionizing radiation in the workplace. The federal limits for such occupational exposure are 700 times less than the LD 30/50 lethal exposure.

Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep.

Van Allen's estimate quoted here is his initial estimate after reviewing the Explorer I data, later found to be tainted by orbital nuclear testing. NASA's quoted figure is based on subsequent tests during the following decade involving dozens and dozens of rocket shots.

Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation.

Accepted by whom? AE8 and AP8, the standard references for cislunar radiation accepted by the U.S. and Europe do not support this contention.

Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem) applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen to the Apollo films?

Because Groves' tests were not representative in the least of the radiation conditions in cislunar space. Particle radiation would not have affected the film due to the extremely low flux at appropriate energy levels. X-rays occur naturally at much lower energy levels than are produced artificially in diagnostic x-rays. In fact, naturally occuring x-rays will only penetrate a few centimeters in air.

The hoax believers confuse the types of radiation and prefer to mislead their readers by dealing only with a notion of scalar amounts.

The only thing that would protect the film from this damage would be a thick layer of lead around the camera casing

Bzzt. Lead is the worst substance you can use to shield against particles. Mr. Arnold may be a fantastic photographer, but he's a lousy physicist. Low atomic-weight materials such as polyethylene are used to shield against particle radiation.

The Hasselblad magazines were sufficient to avoid particles of the energy and flux that occurs in cislunar space. During passage through the Van Allen belts they were safe inside the spacecraft.

What you can see in BOTH films is the same rocks..how can this be if the sites are several km's apart?

Simple. The narration and editing are wrong. A-V Films of Houston made these films for NASA. They are half-hour public relations films, not rigorous historical documents.

The moral is not to use edited material and pretend it's raw footage.

We can rule out marks on the lens of the camera or in the film, because these objects appear on various parts of each shot and not just in one place.

Why does this rule out contamination of the film? I can accept that it may rule out contamination of the lens. Further, I have seen these marks on the JSC scans in black areas that aren't the lunar sky. They are clearly contamination at some point in the imaging process.

How could the Rover camera have sent a picture when the dish was not pointing in one specific direction.

The reason the rover can't transmit a picture while moving is that the image is picked up by the television camera and sent over the S-band link to earth, and the S-band antenna can't track earth fast enough when the rover is moving.

Okay, so the picture on the web site, which we assume is supposed to be the footage in question, is a 16mm DAC frame, not a television frame. The 16mm film camera was used to record the traverse. It could happily operate with the rover in motion because it's recording the images, not transmitting them.

How do we know the frame is from the 16mm DAC? Probably because it includes a picture of the television camera, in the lower right corner. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Ironically there is actual television footage of the rover in motion. When Gene Cernan drove his rover to its final position he was moving slowly and steadily enough for the antenna to make a partial lock. The video quality is lousy, but there nonetheless. The limitation on transmission wasn't a hard and fast rule. It simply wasn't expected to work with the rover in motion.

We'll BA writers, watch the movie to the left. It shows the Apollo 16 LEM leaving the Lunar surface and what do we see... a flame

So make up your mind. No flame means a hoax. Flame means a hoax. Something's wrong.

The first man in Space, Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant".

You can see stars in earth orbit if you're on the night side and let your eyes adjust. That's generally not possible on the constantly daylit lunar surface during an Apollo mission.

2. The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases.

Because it's pure oxygen at 5 psi, not 15 psi. It's chemically identical to earth at sea level.

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket.

Prove it.

If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

Who says all the dust was blown away? And who's to say the dust wasn't blown out from under the nozzle and landed near the footpad 15 feet away?

4) When the LEMs were supposedly leaving the Moon, they should have produced a large bright exhaust flame from the rocket propellant.

Nope. Aerozine 50 produces a nearly transparent plume in a vacuum.

I have turned this one around and have found evidence of a flame on one ascent of the LEM... just to prove the sceptics wrong!

Um, no, you've just produced a contradictory argument.

You get an ignition transient in an vacuum, before the fuel mix equalizes. That's because you pre-inject oxidizer. The transient for this engine lasts about a second. It's possible to see a brief plume, if the insulation debris permits.

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand.

No, compaction can occur without an atmosphere.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

No magic about it. A low bandwidth camera was used on Apollo 11, but a regular bandwidth camera was used on all the rest. This is clearly documented.

7) In most Apollo photos, there is a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background.

Which any competent photo analyst recognizes as the intervening brink of a hill.

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows?

Perspective, and varied terrain.

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it

It didn't.

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

It didn't. It was retracted during re-enetry and re-extended after splashdown. Since the antenna was a VHF antenna it would have been worthless during re-entry anyway.

11) In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle

No. Without its electronics working, the interior of the spacecraft would have been very cold. Basic thermodynamics, and Percy understands little or nothing about it.

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully?

But it was tested successfully, three times in earth orbit and once in low lunar orbit.

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

No, the highest jump was about six feet.

14) it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

Why would anything else be expected? Basic physics demonstrates that the astronauts were packing 360 lbm of inertia propelled by only 1/6 the normal friction.

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn.

This was based on an analysis done by a non-NASA author in the early 1960s assuming a three-foot ground clearance. The LRV was built with a 14-inch ground clearance, lowering the center of gravity and thereby requiring a smaller wheel stride. The unladen c.g. of the LRV was slightly above the vehicle deck.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares

The named physicist, John Mauldin, does not appear on any NASA payroll. Further, basic physics students are taught that great thicknesses of dense material are the worst thing you can use to shield against particle radiation.

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tire in short order.

The zipper was the mechanical fastening, not the airseal.

18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable.

A boxer's speed bag does not have accordion joints and built-in flex points. Space suits do.

The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

They had restraint layers.

in the documentary 'PaperMoon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus

James Collier did not measure a replica. He measured the dummy hatch in the cockpit simulator and told everybody he'd measured the LM.

20) The water sourceair conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapor discharges.

This comes as a great surprise to engineers from all countries who have used porous plate sublimators for forty years without observing anything like that.

21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

Until the astronaut let go of it.

22) With a more than two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?

Ed Fendell pulled back on the lever before the countdown reached zero. Duh.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resigned just days before the first Apollo mission?

Webb's days were numbered from day one. He pissed off too many people in acquiring funding.

24) Another overlooked intriguing fact is that NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission.

Covered in depth on my web site. A satellite is neither required to fool flight controllers nor sufficient to fool ground trackers.

the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest.

Consider they are different types of radiation, and the difference in energy and flux between these two scenarios is many orders of magnitude.

Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon.

Grissom was a smart guy, but I doubt that a pessimistic assesment given in frustration is equivalent to the combined expertise of hundreds of engineers and mission planners.

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed

And they are, but not in a way that affects Apollo astronauts and their brief exposure. It's more a factor for ISS inhabitants and Mars voyagers over the long term.

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented.

False. Fairchild was producing commercial integrated chips for general purpose as early as 1963. Texas Instruments followed shortly thereafter. The first IC computer was produced commercially in 1965.

In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing

Irrelevant. Embedded guidance systems don't run Microsoft Windows and don't need the fancy graphics and other bells and whistles found on a home computer. In fact, it takes only six bytes to construct a viable guidance computer. Memory size is largely irrelevant, as is processor power. The heavy computations were done on the ground by roomfuls of mainframes and trasnmitted up to the spacecraft as needed.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope

No, it wouldn't.

30) In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

There has been no need to retain it, nor the resources to do so.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mislabelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography.

No, they were practicing it ahead of time since they had had no time to train for it.

32) Why did ALL of the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

They all weren't destroyed. I have very detailed documents and drawings; they're not hard to get.

Many of the development and manufacturing drawings were destroyed. This is because they were immense in volume. Grumman produced these drawings at the rate of 4,000 per week for more than a year. Plus, each deliverd spacecraft had to have about a boxcar full of documentation. Grumman is an aerospace company, not a museum. They are required to keep the drawings for operating craft, but not those that have been decomissioned or destroyed. Grumman retained the basic drawings and documents, but destroyed the detailed component drawings, as is common practice in the industry.

Why did they all resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program?

Because being an astronaut is very hard work, not the sort of thing people can maintain for several years.

It would not be impossible to irradiate a rock or put it in a vacuum to get the same results.

What geologists find unique and spectacular about moon rocks cannot be produced by either of these methods.

Lee Gelvani another friend of Kaysing, says he almost convinced informant James Irwin to confess about the cover-up. Irwin was going to ring Kaysing about it, however he died of a heart attack within 3 days. Is this evidence that a cover-up is in existence?

And this is all according to Kaysing, with no verification. Kaysing lies through his teeth. Irwin's death from a heart attack is not suspicious in the least considering that he had a history of heart disease, including a prior heart attack.

They could have had the first launch of the shuttle a whole 5 years before it was finally launched and saved the American taxpayer 20 billion dollars.

Maximum reusability was a goal of the shuttle program.

During Project Apollo, six highly complex manned craft landed on the Moon, took off and returned to Earth using a relatively low level of technology. An 86% success rate. Since Apollo, twenty five simple, unmanned craft with increasingly higher levels of technology have attempted to fulfil their missions to Mars. Only seven succeeded.

Manned and unmanned space travel present entirely different problems to engineers. Further, landing by automation on Mars is considerably more difficult than landing by direct human control on the moon.

Whew.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-03-27 23:19 ]</font>

Jim
2002-Mar-28, 03:48 AM
On 2002-03-27 16:00, Donnie B. wrote:
... The capsule really did get cold after the explosion and resulting loss of power. This issue has been much discussed on this board. Almost no one who has investigated the issue thoroughly has any doubt that this is exactly what should and would happen in such a case -- and, in fact, it did.


Our local paper today had a section celebrating NASA's 40th anniversary (cake and punch are being served in the lobby). It included an article on the benefits society has derived from space exploration.

Interestingly, one such benefit mentioned is the insulation being used in houses now. It is thin sheeting with an aluminized surface that reflects 95% of the sun's radiant energy. It is based on the insulation developed for and used in the Apollo program.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-28, 04:31 AM
Polished aluminum has very low emissivity.

4-Lom
2002-Mar-28, 11:39 AM
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

No, the highest jump was about six feet.

I think the main reason is becuase the lack of gravity makes it much harder to crouch, and hence build up enough spring-loaded energy (terminology???) to propel yourself very far. Its like trying to walk underwater. Walking and to a greater extent running are both controlled free-fall, which is obviously going to be severely hampered on a planet with low gravity.

ToSeek
2002-Mar-28, 12:23 PM
Armstrong was by far the better photographer.

Not to mention that they only had one camera, which was in Armstrong's possession most of the time.

No, the highest jump was about six feet.

Not arguing with you, but when was this? (I don't remember seeing it.)

Ed Fendell pulled back on the lever before the countdown reached zero. Duh.

On Apollo 15 (the first TV of a LM takeoff), he didn't try to anticipate, and the LM soars out of sight almost immediately.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resigned just days before the first Apollo mission?

Webb's days were numbered from day one. He pissed off too many people in acquiring funding.

I think it was more that the administration (Kennedy/Johnson) that had appointed Webb was leaving office, and Webb was planning to leave with them. It's worth noting that most of the work on Apollo had been done already - the administrator's primary job at that point would be planning what to do after Apollo, and Webb may have been just as happy to let someone else deal with that.

Andrew
2002-Mar-28, 01:31 PM
Not arguing with you, but when was this? (I don't remember seeing it.)

Armstrong jumped on to a rung of the LM's ladder(about 5-6 feet up).

JayUtah
2002-Mar-28, 01:55 PM
I think the main reason is becuase the lack of gravity makes it much harder to crouch

This is likely true. Recall that Apollo 11 landed soft and failed to compress the landings struts. Armstrong practiced jumping up to the lowest rung -- about three feet off the footpad. When it came Aldrin's turn, he had to make two attempts before he could do it.

You have to physically (i.e., using muscles) flex your knees in lunar gravity. On earth you can just relax your muscles and let gravity do most of the flexing. Plus the accordion joint at the knee was designed only to allow comfortable flexion to a certain degree, that required for walking.

Its like trying to walk underwater.

Yes and no. Part of the difficulty in walking underwater is moving against the much denser fluid medium. But in terms of the lack of traction due to buoyancy it's comparable. The astronauts were packing 360 pounds of their own mass plus their equipment. While the weight is reduced on the moon, the inertia is not. But weight in turn determines traction, which means they had twice the mass and 1/6 the traction, leading to a dozen times the hassle.

The reason most commonly given by the astronauts for why they didn't perform gymnastics (except for Jack Schmitt, who did perform gymnastics) is that the center of gravity was so far to the rear that they feared falling over backwards while jumping. Armstrong said he nearly did this and it scared him, so he didn't do it anymore.

The other astronauts who witnessed John Young's "mere" 19-inch jump weren't disappointed. They were actually surprised that after only a few minutes in lunar gravity he was already so agile.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-28, 02:05 PM
Not to mention that they only had one camera, which was in Armstrong's possession most of the time.

Yes, but that's more an effect than a cause. They indeed had only one EVA camera, but it was assigned to Armstrong for most of the mission because they knew he'd take the best photos. There was another Hasselblad in the LM, but it was the orbital model -- black body and no reseau plate. Roll 37, which has just been added to the ALSJ, was taken from inside the LM with this camera, mostly Aldrin's photography. (He really wasn't that bad, but Armstrong had displayed better intuition and was already experienced in photography.)

Not arguing with you, but when was this? (I don't remember seeing it.)

It's pretty hard to see. I've got stills on my web site http://www.clavius.org/gravleap.html

I didn't look for it until I read Armstrong's debriefing where he says he jumped as far up the LM ladder as he could get. Once you know what to look for in the EVA footage, you can see it.

On Apollo 15 (the first TV of a LM takeoff), he didn't try to anticipate, and the LM soars out of sight almost immediately.

And on Apollo 16 he tried to anticipate, but got the timing a bit wrong. (The tilt and zoom rates were constant.) And on Apollo 17 he got it right, allowing us to follow the LM ascent through several seconds past pitchover.

And incidentally, after pitchover you are looking right up the LM's engine bell and you can see the glow of the engine. It's a little bright dot.

[n]I think it was more that the administration (Kennedy/Johnson) that had appointed Webb was leaving office, and Webb was planning to leave with them.[/b]

That's just as plausibe a reason, especially since the administration was switching from Democrat to Republican.

Webb was responsible for having secured the vast amounts of funding that propelled Apollo through the mid-1960s, and he did so via less than happy means. Historians believe Webb used tactics similar to J. Edgar Hoover (i.e., knowing in whose closets all the Congressional skeletons were hidden) to essentially blackmail Congress into giving him the money. Regardless of how well he'd done his job, I don't think the Nixon administration would have allowed him to retain his post.

ToSeek
2002-Mar-28, 02:10 PM
On 2002-03-28 09:05, JayUtah wrote:

Not arguing with you, but when was this? (I don't remember seeing it.)

It's pretty hard to see. I've got stills on my web site http://www.clavius.org/gravleap.html

I didn't look for it until I read Armstrong's debriefing where he says he jumped as far up the LM ladder as he could get. Once you know what to look for in the EVA footage, you can see it.


Thanks - hadn't found that page on your site yet.

ToSeek
2002-Mar-28, 02:12 PM
On 2002-03-28 09:05, JayUtah wrote:

On Apollo 15 (the first TV of a LM takeoff), he didn't try to anticipate, and the LM soars out of sight almost immediately.

And on Apollo 16 he tried to anticipate, but got the timing a bit wrong. (The tilt and zoom rates were constant.) And on Apollo 17 he got it right, allowing us to follow the LM ascent through several seconds past pitchover.

And incidentally, after pitchover you are looking right up the LM's engine bell and you can see the glow of the engine. It's a little bright dot.


I have a recollection that on one of the missions the camera followed the LM for quite some time, until it was a dot, in fact. I recall the dot would move slowly across the screen, then abruptly in the other direction as the camera moved to keep up with it. Or is my memory failing me?

JayUtah
2002-Mar-28, 03:04 PM
I have a recollection that on one of the missions the camera followed the LM for quite some time

Apollo 17. Your memory is excellent. The pan and tilt rates were fixed at three degrees per second, which makes it hard to track a departing LM ascent stage. And if you zoom in too far, you run the risk of a pan or tilt shifting the object out of the frame entirely and losing it forever.

The LRV camera was online for quite some time after the astronauts' departure, and we have video of the various pans that were done on the once-again lifeless moon.

AstroMike
2002-Mar-29, 06:29 PM
On 2002-03-28 10:04, JayUtah wrote:
I have a standing challenge to David Percy to reproduce these photos in a studio and show us how it could have been done. So far he has not accepted the challenge, perhaps because he's tried it and already realized the error of his hypothesis.

I also dare the hoax believers to get some ordinary Earth rocks, put them in a very hot or microwave oven, and see if they get the same results as Moon rocks. Perhaps maybe some of them tried it, and realized it won't work.

James
2002-Mar-29, 08:05 PM
On 2002-03-29 13:29, AstroMike wrote:


On 2002-03-28 10:04, JayUtah wrote:
I have a standing challenge to David Percy to reproduce these photos in a studio and show us how it could have been done. So far he has not accepted the challenge, perhaps because he's tried it and already realized the error of his hypothesis.

I also dare the hoax believers to get some ordinary Earth rocks, put them in a very hot or microwave oven, and see if they get the same results as Moon rocks. Perhaps maybe some of them tried it, and realized it won't work.



But NASA used a special microwave!

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

_________________
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." [Carl Sagan]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: James on 2002-03-29 15:05 ]</font>

AstroMike
2002-Apr-01, 01:06 AM
On 2002-03-29 15:05, James wrote:
But NASA used a special microwave!

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

_________________
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." [Carl Sagan]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: James on 2002-03-29 15:05 ]</font>


What would be so special about it exactly? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Andrew
2002-Apr-01, 01:28 AM
On 2002-03-31 20:06, AstroMike wrote:


On 2002-03-29 15:05, James wrote:
But NASA used a special microwave!

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

_________________
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." [Carl Sagan]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: James on 2002-03-29 15:05 ]</font>


What would be so special about it exactly? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif



It was a magic oven.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andrew on 2002-03-31 20:28 ]</font>

AstroMike
2002-Apr-01, 02:20 AM
On 2002-03-31 20:28, Andrew wrote:
It was a magic oven.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andrew on 2002-03-31 20:28 ]</font>


And how was it magic? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

jrkeller
2002-Apr-01, 02:30 AM
The use of ovens and microwaves to "cook up" some moon rocks is quite laughable.
When I was a graduate school several of my colleagues were researching the effects of microwaves on water filled ceramics. It's a great idea because the microwaves heat the water to steam and it comes out of the ceramic and leaves the ceramic untouched.

ToSeek
2002-Apr-01, 12:39 PM
On 2002-03-31 21:20, AstroMike wrote:


On 2002-03-31 20:28, Andrew wrote:
It was a magic oven.


And how was it magic? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif



If we told you, we'd have to kill you. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Peter B
2002-Apr-03, 12:28 AM
I just noticed this quote from the website: "The LEM's descent engine used hyperbolic propellants..."

Would that be anything like the claims made on the site? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

JayUtah
2002-Apr-03, 03:46 AM
it comes out of the ceramic and leaves the ceramic untouched.

My epxeriments with older (not microwave-safe) ceramics suggested that the ceremic is not necessarily untouched. Sometimes the water wants to leave in a big hurry and breaks the ceramic.

Of course the moon hoaxers don't understand how microwave ovens work. It's as much a mystery to them as Van Allen belts or rocket propulsion. So it's perfectly reasonable to them that a microwave oven will "magically" alter the crystalline or chemical composition of minerals to fool expert geologists who spend their whole lives looking at such things.

David Hall
2002-Apr-03, 04:05 AM
The Physics 2000 site someone posted here has a great entry-level primer on Microwave ovens.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/microwaves/index.html

I have one question that wasn't covered in it though. Why do the microwaves only affect water molecules? Are any other substances excited by them?

Donnie B.
2002-Apr-03, 12:31 PM
I believe that the klystrons in microwave ovens all operate at a wavelength that stimulates the natural resonance of water molecules. Other substances are affected, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how closely their resonances match water's.

DaveC
2002-Apr-03, 12:33 PM
"Why do the microwaves only affect water molecules? Are any other substances excited by them?"

The "wife substance" can get excited by ANY new appliance.

David Hall
2002-Apr-03, 12:42 PM
On 2002-04-03 07:31, Donnie B. wrote:
I believe that the klystrons in microwave ovens all operate at a wavelength that stimulates the natural resonance of water molecules. Other substances are affected, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how closely their resonances match water's.


I kinda figured that. So does anyone know what other substances might be affected to a large degree? Just curious y'know.

Donnie B.
2002-Apr-03, 12:43 PM
On 2002-04-03 07:42, David Hall wrote:
So does anyone know what other substances might be affected to a large degree? Just curious y'know.


Ummm... Jell-O ??

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

DaveC
2002-Apr-03, 01:18 PM
Apparently almost any polar compound will be heated by a commercial microwave oven. Sugar gets warm - salt doesn't. There are some plastics that get hot in a microwave oven. We've got a bunch of distorted tupperware containers as a result of heating leftovers in the microwave. Anything that contains water molecules - wood, many ceramics, popping corn etc will be affected, but metals are heated as well - perhaps by a different mechanism?
Anyway, I did cook a piece of granite for several minutes and it failed to show any effect - didn't even get warm. It would be interesting to determine the "law" that governs how a substance will behave when subjected to microwaves.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-03, 01:56 PM
Many metals respond energetically to household microwaves. That's why you don't leave the fork on the plate when you warm up the leftovers.

Get an old AOL CD-ROM and put it in the microwave with a cup of water. Set it for five seconds and watch the fireworks!

SeanF
2002-Apr-03, 02:04 PM
Small animals don't respond well to microwaves, either . . . at least, that's what I've heard! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

(Gremlins, anyone?)

odysseus0101
2002-Apr-03, 02:22 PM
Get an old AOL CD-ROM and put it in the microwave with a cup of water. Set it for five seconds and watch the fireworks!


Finally, a good use for all those free AOL CDs I keep getting!

DaveC
2002-Apr-03, 02:28 PM
"Finally, a good use for all those free AOL CDs I keep getting!"

I've been keeping them waiting for the erase and rerecord technology to be developed - but microwave fireworks sounds like more fun.

David Hall
2002-Apr-03, 03:05 PM
On 2002-04-03 09:04, SeanF wrote:
Small animals don't respond well to microwaves, either . . . at least, that's what I've heard! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

(Gremlins, anyone?)


Actually, I've seen roaches walk around in a running microwave as if nothing much was happening. I've heard the reason is that they are almost pure protein and that their water content is so low that they can last for ages.

I'm sure it can't be pleasant though. They do have some H2O in them, so it must be one heck of a hotfoot (and thorax, abdomen. head, etc...)

Jim
2002-Apr-03, 03:14 PM
Microwave is a type of electromagnetic wave with a wavelength range from 1 mm to 1 m. For domestic microwave ovens, the international standard wavelength is 122 mm, corresponding to a frequency of 2450 Hz. This wavelength is chosen to avoid interference with telecommunication.

Microwaves can penetrate insulators readily, but when they reach electromagnetically polar molecules such as water, they set these molecules into vibration at the same wave frequency. In the oscillations, friction between the molecules generates heat. Water is a small, very polar molecule and responds readily to the EM; other polar molecules will also respond, but to a lesser degree based on their extent of polarity.

Microwaves can also be reflected by metals without any heat dissipation, which will heat up the microwave generator and finally damage it.

(Cockroaches, of course, are immune; they can survive a nuclear war, so why not microwaves.

Which brings into question the AOL CD trick. After all, they are the equivalent of cockroaches in the CD world.)